Nathan Beyer wrote:
What's the concern about just using the prescribed branching pattern
for SVN? There are some other nice tricks like "externals" for pulling
in common files into the working copies of other branches (ala the
'concurrent' code in 'standard' that's pulled into 'enhanced' on
checkout).
Even the authors of SVN warn people away from using externals.
I would propose we at least attempt to go down a path of
investigating a branching.
We should consider everything, but I'd personally rather keep as few
codelines as possible.
Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first,
before spending too much time on looking for a solution. For example,
if logging is a real requirement, but everyone agrees it can be done
via instrumentation (AspectJ, java.lang.instrument, etc), then are
there any other requirements that affect the actual source files
internally? If not, then could all of the other requirements be
fulfilled by judicious SCM use?
So, I would suggest we back up a little and just layout all of the
requirements first, so we can make sure everyone's in agreement about
the needs.
Exactly - we need use cases (and it's not clear that the logging
problems have been resolved w/ aspects yet...)
geir
-Nathan
On 10/31/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution.
Can anyone think of anything else? No one said this was going to be
easy...
geir
